[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Applying functions to all the symbols in a package...
- To: Brad Miller <miller@UR-ACORN.ARPA>
- Subject: Applying functions to all the symbols in a package...
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1986 16:12:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 21 Oct 1986 11:53-EDT from Brad Miller <miller at UR-ACORN.ARPA>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Back when the initial design was being done, we explicitly considered
whether to go with MAP-SYMBOLS or DO-SYMBOLS. At the time, it seemed
that most of us had the opposite religion from Mr. Miller. Most of us
favored the iterative form, and I don't remember anyone arguing for the
mapping form. A practical argument is that DO-SYMBOLS typically is used
in situations where there are a LOT of symbols must be processed, and in
the absence of a very clever compiler the MAP form would be slower due
to the need for explicitly calling the supplied functional argument.
I don't think that it would be worthwhile to include both forms just to
accommodate both stylistic preferences. These facilities are not used
often, so the occasional use of a less-favored style should not be a big
hardship for anyone. And, of course, fanatical DO-haters can write a
MAP-SYMBOLS macro easily enough, and not have to worry about what it